Pages

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

December
brings with it many different celebrations and the most universal of
all is New Year's Eve. Regardless of what corner of the world one
comes from, the anticipation of the dawn of a new year brings joy and
celebration.

Across
the globe and in so many languages the anthem for the new year is
sung. In Times Square, New York tens of thousands gather to count
down the dropping ball. In Sydney, Australia fireworks begin to
light the night skies, elaborate and beautiful. The world comes
together in a celebration which transcends language, custom, race and
nationality for the same purpose.

Messages
of hope for the future stream across the airwaves from leaders of
countries and faiths. Privately many make their resolutions that are
unlikely to be kept. Regardless, most look back on the passing year
and look forward to the virginal new days with some degree of hope.
In the end each of us holds the steering wheel of destiny for our own
future.

As we
look at the year that has passed each individual will find some event
which had left a scar that they would not want to repeat. For most
it is a time to look forward, believing that the future holds greater
promise. Yet we cannot deny that our past impacts our future, and
although the path or direction is not preset by the past, its journey
becomes more laborious.

Collectively,
humanity has achieved immense progress. It has shown that maturity
and knowledge are keys to developing a future with optimism. For all
of us, whether as individuals or as nations, our past is a foundation
on which to build on. There have been massive strides forward in
science, technology and medicine. We have come to a realisation that
we must nurture our planet, its air, soil and waters for a
sustainable future for the coming generations. Even the way we
govern our communities has led to an exchange of ideas and thoughts
without fear of persecution and reprisal.

Still,
humanity's most basic trait has not been subdued and violence has
torn us apart. Looking back at 2014 one is left with a chilling
view; not one of hope but of despair. The roll call of violence in
2014 touches every continent and scars every month of the year.

It is
not possible to start with one incident as a spark which set humanity
on fire. Decades of hate and atrocities between Israel and Palestine
exploded again after nine months of peace talks that broke down in
April. After the breakdown, the world saw a new horror in this ugly
war where teenagers became the targets and pawns for death merchants.
The first were two Palestinian teenagers killed in the West Bank on
May 15th, then followed by three Israeli teenagers
abducted and killed on June 12th, and a reprisal by
Israelis on July 2nd as a Palestinian teenager was
abducted and burned to death. Finally July 8th saw Israel
launch a military campaign against Hamas; the war lasted 50 days and
killed more than 2100 Palestinians against 72 Israeli. Most of the
Palestinians were civilians.

Across
the globe Russia's Vladimir Putin decided that peace and prosperity
should be remnants of the past with the annexation of Crimea and
military intervention in eastern Ukraine. International law meant
little to Putin and his actions brought condemnation from around the
world and eventually serious economic sanctions which have crippled
Russia's economy.

Africa
has had its share of violence struggling with poverty, hunger and
political unrest for decades. This time it was Nigeria that woke to
the sound of gunfire and screams of pain. A new demon rose by the
name of Boko Haram, wishing to install its own vision of prosperity
without education, based solely in fear and a rebirth of the dark
ages. Boko Haram stands by a belief that girls should not attend
schools and that boys should only be given an Islamic education.
With that insanity in mind their terror campaign led to the abduction
of some 275 school girls in Chibok, Nigeria, of which 219 are still
missing. Following this attack, in April a suicide bomber believed
to be part of the terrorist group Boko Haram killed 46 students in
Potiskum, Nigeria.

Islamic
terrorists found themselves at the forefront of news reports again in
Peshwar, Pakistan later in the year. This time it was Pakistani
Taliban murderers who attacked a school, killing 132 children and 9
staff, making this the bloodiest school siege worldwide in nearly a
decade.

Religion
has been used by humanity as a banner behind which monstrous
atrocities had been committed for centuries. Whether in the hands of
Christians waving the symbol of the red cross throughout the
Crusades, or the Jews singing the chorus of “never again” as
their tanks and rockets level houses, tearing apart innocent civilian
flesh, all in the name of faith. Today our headlines are too often
faced with followers of Islam who seem to think that the butchery of
innocents truly is the yellow brick road to their salvation.

Was
it the dream of eternal salvation that drove Man Haron Manis in
Sydney, Australia, or simply an insane nightmare? This was a man who
had committed a number of crimes yet found himself still with the
luxury of freedom as he took hostages in the Lindt Cafe. In the end
his life was ended by police, and two innocent human beings who had
not known him or his religion paid with their lives. Their family
and friends left with anguish and pain in a world gone mad.

The
Islamic States of Iraq and Syria found that Al Qaeda was to give
birth to a new madness under the title of ISIS. ISIS found world
attention with the kidnapping of journalist James Foley and his
public execution on television. More kidnappings and beheadings of
innocent civilians brought recognition to this group of terrorists by
the CIA and a world united to its eradication.

Politics
and economics have followed religion as great motivators of the human
spirit. In the past we have seen revolutions in France and Russia,
the rise of madman Adolf Hitler and the longevity of an equal in
Josef Stalin. In April, Venezuela found its people taking to the
streets in protest to a broken economy, an uncontrolled crime rate
and political repression. Violence spilled across the Venezuelan
capital with the country's leader ordering arrests and torture.

Torture
as a tool of terrorists has been refined over the ages to a fine art.
In the US, a country seen by the world over as a leader in democracy
and equality, the Senate Intelligence Committee released its report
on the CIA's use of brutal torture of detainees in Guantanamo Bay.Hundreds of pages detailing
man's inhumanity to man had been made public. At the end of it all
the most chilling response came from Dick Cheney, the former Vice
President under George Bush Jr. In interviews Cheney said, “All
the techniques that were authorised by the president were in effect,
blessed by the Justice Department.” Here
the mere title of Justice Department can only be seen as an
abomination of language, especially as Cheney continued with, “we
were very careful to stop short of torture.” Rectal
feeding was not considered as torture by former US Vice President
Dick Cheney, and when he said “I'd
do it again in a minute” hebrought
the world to a momentary standstill.

America
not only picked up the baton of the ancient crusaders singing a
chorus of “never again,” it also found world attention in its
torture of the American soul. Ferguson, Missouri on August 9th
became a centre of repression of freedom and a right to life, with
the shooting of Michael Brown by a white police officer.

Long ago the words of Martin Luther
King reached out to all who believe in a basic concept of equality in
humanity. Martin Luther King had a dream where an individual was to
be judged upon his or her attributes, not the colour of their skin.
Sadly this dream has been turned into a nightmare with continuing
racial hatred that time and time again explodes into public attention
as with the shooting of Michael Brown and the death of Eric Garner in
New York.

Race was not an issue, nor was
political unrest, when reservist Corp. Nathan Cirillo's life came to
an end at the hands of a madman. Corp. Cirillo stood honourary guard
at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, Canada; a single father with
dreams for his future. Just another innocent caught in the sights of
madness that had gripped the front pages across the world.

Humanity's
propensity for violence has provided disturbing headlines month after
month, and little else. There are those like Valerie Amos,
Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief
Coordinator, at the United Nation's Central Emergency Response Fund
(CERF), who comes to the aid of hundreds of thousands of victims
displaced by war and natural disasters. Valerie Amos said in CERF's
annual report,“In
my four years as Emergency Relief Coordinator, I have seen the impact
that CERF funding has had for some of the world's most vulnerable
people from Sudan to Mali, from Afghanistan to Haiti.” CERF
throughout 2014 have allocated and used $450 million US dollars in 44
countries. Relief such as that offered by CERF
is important but it always comes after an event. Our very future
rests not on scientific discovery or conservation of the world's
resources, it depends on change. Yet how do we achieve this change
when our very history is built on violent struggle?

The
most chilling statement came from Pro-life Congressman Steve Stockman
of the Republican Party when he said, “If
babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted.” Our
babies in fact are being weaned on the acceptance of violence,
believing that events in Africa, Palestine or Ukraine do not impact
their lives.

It is time to celebrate. It is
time to look towards the dawn of a new year. Each of us has our
dreams and goals which cannot be forgotten or put aside through
pessimistic lament. True 2014 has not been the best of years but
humanity has survived a great deal and together we can find a way
forward.

Friday, December 5, 2014

What
is the purpose of advertising? The answer is quite simple in
fact. “It is a form of
marketing communication used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an
audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take or continue to take
some action.” (Wikipedia, Advertising).
Spending on advertising was estimated in 2010 to be $467 billion
worldwide, and internationally there are four giant conglomerates:
Interpublic, Omnicom, Publicis and WPP.

Even
in a bad economy advertising does not slow, in fact some in
businesses believe that promoting or communicating their product or
service is of a far greater necessity when money is tight. In Latin,
ad vertere means “to
turn around”; in any
enterprise it is a tool to grab a share of an available market and
audience.

Advertising
messages are usually paid for by sponsors carried via various old
media such as newspapers, magazines, television and radio
advertisement, outdoor advertising or direct mail. In our ever
changing and developing world we have new and somewhat exciting media
opening up such as blogs, websites or text messages, Facebook and
Twitter. As media forms are constantly expanding and changing, so
are its clients. It is no longer only a need for businesses who
provide a product to a market but today those clients span the full
realm of society.

Regardless
of who is the client or the type of media used, one basic commonality
and link to the very early days of this massive industry's growth
remains unchanged. Walter D. Scott, a psychologist of the early 20th
century, said “Man
has been called the reasoning animal but he could with greater
truthfulness be called the creature of suggestion. He is reasonable,
but he is to a greater extent suggestible.” Psychology
is still the major influencing factor in a good advertising campaign.

Partnered
equally with psychology is taste. As tastes change so do advertising
campaigns. Another giant of the advertising business, one who has
been called “the father of modern advertising,”was
Thomas J. Barratt from London. Barratt was working for the Pears
Soap company and in 1907 had stated, “tastes change,
fashions change, and the advertiser has to change with them. An idea
that was effective a generation ago would fall flat, stale and
unprofitable if presented to the public today. Not that the idea of
today is always better than the older idea, but it is different –
it hits the present taste.”
(Wikipedia, Advertising).

Whether
it is the ever changing tastes of a marketplace or understanding the
basics of psychology the purpose of advertising has always been a
simple one. Whoever the client is, big or small, providing a product
or a service, and whatever media is chosen, newspaper, outdoor
advertising or internet, the purpose is to deliver the proper
message that the service or product is the best. In a world
where competition can be fierce depending on the chosen field of endeavour, advertising is a tool which can provide growth and profit.

In
Canada advertising as an industry is self-regulated through the
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards which is administered by
Advertising Standards Canada (ASC). This Code of Advertising
Standards is broken into 14 specific clauses beginning with number
one 'Accuracy and Clarity,' through to number fourteen 'Unacceptable
Depictions and Portrayals'. The bottom line is simple, if any
advertising does not comply with the Code's fourteen clauses it will
be removed from public access or view.

Canada
also has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which are outlined under
its first clause, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in its subject
only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Clause
2 states, “Everyone has the following fundamental
freedoms,” particularly of
relevance is 2(b) “freedom of thought, belief, opinion
and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication.”

At
this point a serious and frightening question arises. If
the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards is to be accepted as the
“prescribed” law in advertising and that “prescribed” law has
not been breached, and if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the fundamental freedom of the press and other media
communication under its clause 2(b).What then
motivates a provider of advertising space to breach signed contracts
and refuse to publicly display an advertisement other than illegal
censorship and breach of contract law?

Contracts
are legally binding agreements between two parties. There are terms
which both parties equally agree upon relating to costs, timelines
specific to the provision of services or goods, and termination
conditions relevant to the individual contract signed. Once a
contract is signed and monies paid each party are equally bound by
the conditions set out in the contract. Breach of any of the
conditions agreed upon will, in most cases, result in costly legal
action.

As
a website providing news and information Mayorgate has grown to being
read in over 30 countries outside the US and Canada, and a readership
numbering well over half a million. Locally it was time to invest in
advertising to promote the name and what Mayorgate attempts to
achieve. Outdoor advertising was chosen as the most appropriate form
of promoting the name and at the time most cost effective.

OMG
Niagara of Cushman Road in St. Catharines was contacted. This
company sells space on large waste and recycling bins that are
located throughout the city on well travelled streets, at busy
intersections, shopping malls and downtown. It is a relatively new
avenue for advertising and one that provides great potential. After
several phone calls with a representative of OMG Niagara, Scott
Davidson, two contracts were signed. The first was dated August 19th
2014 and the second August 21st 2014. All monies
requested were paid and a request
made by Scott Davidson for artwork to be sent in PDF form toomgniagara@hotmail.comcomplied with.

After
the first artwork was sent in, a
phone call was received from Scott Davidson requesting some changes.
The artwork was revised and sent in again to the attention of Gary
Dingwall at OMG Niagara. What was designed was straightforward,
simple and aimed at the promotion of the website and its name.

Artwork submitted to Gary Dingwall.

Several
days after the revised artwork was sent in a phone message was
received from Gary Dingwall of OMG. As one listens to the voice and
the words both shock and revulsion are immediate responses.Immediately a previous incident comes to mind involving a
potential mayoral candidate in the most recent municipal elections,
Adam Arsenault. Arsenault had been threatened by former Mayor Brian
McMullan to remove his tweet
linking to the Mayorgate website. Mr. Dingwall of OMG makes
it rather clear he has fear of reprisals by the City against his
company. Can anything like that be possible today in Canada? Can
anything like this be permitted today in Canada?

OMG
Niagara has been doing business in the Niagara Region for over a
decade. Documents have been obtained from the Community Services
Committee of the City of Niagara Falls dated February 3rd
2003, recommending a transfer of an agreement from Olifas Marketing
Group Inc. to OMG Niagara. Originally an agreement had been approved
by the City of Niagara Falls for Olifas Marketing Group Inc. to
install Info Boxes and Info Bars on City road allowances. This
agreement was approved in May 1998, and in May of 2002 and the City
was approached by Mr. Gary Dingwall “indicating that the
franchise for the installation of Info Bars and Info Boxes was
transferred to Mr. Dingwall, operating as OMG Niagara by Olifas
Marketing Group Inc.”

Olifas
Marketing Group Inc. was founded by Salvatore Oliveti with Loredana
Oliveti and Giancarlo Serpe named as officers of the company. OMG
found itself in front of public attention when Montreal crime figure
Vito Rizzuto had been arrested for impaired driving whilst driving a
vehicle owned by OMG.

Vito
Rizzuto had to have been one of the most well know Mob bosses in
Canada. Unlike many others who hide behind a facade of legitimate
business and the safety of political connections, Rizzuto was the
epitome of a movie mobster. He served jail time in Colorado for his
role in the death of three Bonanno crime family captains. Rizzuto
died in 2013 in a Montreal hospital after apparent health
complications; no autopsy was conducted.

Meanwhile
back at OMG, Salvatore Oliveti, who was one of seven Ontario men
named by Italian authorities in Mafia connections, claimed that he
had no idea of Rizzuto's connection to his OMG. According to one of
his lawyers, Symon Zucker, “No one knew (Rizzuto) had an
interest in it.” (Client not mobster, lawyer says, Rob Lamberti,
Toronto Sun, December 18, 2010). Yet further investigation shows
that Vito Rizzuto's wife and children made $1.6 million from the sale
of 8,750 shares in Olifas Marketing Group Inc. (OMG).

OMG
in the end was sold to a Mexican outdoor advertising company Eumex.
A Toronto City staff report dated December 12th 2003
advises the Works Committee and Council of the change in control and
name change for Olifas Marketing Group Inc. The report states that
OMG had been renamed Urban Equipment of Canada Inc. (EUCAN).
Documents obtained from the City of Niagara Falls confirm that Olifas
Marketing Group Inc. transferred the local franchise to Gary Dingwall
operating as OMG Niagara.

It
doesn't matter what happened to Salvatore Oliveti or his Olifas
Marketing Group Inc.; its sale and renaming is simply a paper trail.
Here in Niagara it is OMG Niagara, and it is still operating under
that name. All business is administered by contract and therefore
governed by contract legislation. Advertising that is placed by OMG
Niagara must pass the basic guidelines of The Canadian Code of
Advertising Standards. So now the question that demands an answer is
why would OMG Niagara intentionally breach contracts that it had
entered into?

As
already stated two contracts were signed in August with OMG Niagara
to have outdoor advertising space provided. The artwork complied
in full with the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. In response
this voice message was left by Gary Dingwall of OMG Niagara. A full
transcript of the short message is below.

“Hi
Alex, how are you. It's Gary from OMG. Boy you put me in a heck of a
spot (laughs)! I thought it over and thought it over and I like the
idea of somebody you know having um personal thoughts and that, but
it was kind of misleading when we first talked that it was just a
website. Um, what, what you're basically asking me to do is bite the
hand that feeds me and um I can't if you have a personal thing
against um ah the mayor or um any of the councilors, um we just
can't, we can't advertise that, they're the ones that, they give us
our permits and allow us to operate and put food on my table and I
think you can understand that, um, if you want to Creative Outdoor
Advertising might um advertise you, um, they're the bench people,
don't have their number offhand but um I'll ask Scott to refund your
money to you and um all the best to you. I'm, like I say I like
somebody that's a debate and that thinks out of the box but I gotta
look after um my business and um what, what I can do and can't do.
Hope you understand, talk to you later, bye.”

Following receipt of the voice
message left by Gary Dingwall two emails were sent to OMG Niagara.
The first email dated September 14th 2014requested
a written termination by OMG Niagara. It was ignored by Gary
Dingwall. The second email demanded a written termination notice by
OMG Niagara. It was ignored by Gary Dingwall. According to the
'Terms and Conditions Covering This Advertising Contract' it states,
“Unless otherwise stated herein, all notices provided here under
shall be in writing and shall be given either by prepaid registered
mail, or by personal delivery of same, address to OMG media or the
client at the address contained on the face of the contract.” It
also states that “All notices of cancellation must be received
by OMG media in writing.” Finally on the back of the contract
it states “The terms of this agreement shall be governed by the
laws of the Province of Ontario.” OMG Niagara intentionally
breached binding contracts and refused to provide the cancellation in
writing.

In addition to breach of contract,
Gary Dingwall lied in his voice message. Gary said in his own voice
“when we first talked that it was just a website.” Dingwall
lied! At no time, not over the phone nor in person had I spoken with
Gary Dingwall about anything. My only contact was with Scott
Davidson who represented OMG and signed the contracts. This is the
same Scott that is referred to in the voice message by Gary Dingwall.
Gary Dingwall lied!

Not only did Gary Dingwall lie, he
accused me of lying to him when he said “but it was kind of
misleading...” Dingwall lied, he decided to breach contracts,
he also decided to breach the Charter of Rights, and in his cowardice
he accused another individual of deceit. What has Gary Dingwall got
to fear so much? He goes on to say, “...we cannot advertise
that, they're the ones that, they give us our permits and allow us to
operate and put food on my table...”. Does Dingwall fear the
mayor and councillors? Does Dingwall fear reprisals of some sort
from City government in some fashion? Can any mayor or councillor
threaten a business for any reason whatsoever?

Dingwall's message concludes with,
“I'm, like I say I like somebody that's a debate and that thinks
out of the box but I gotta look after, um, my business and um what,
what I can do and can't do.” What has Gary Dingwall got to
fear? OMG Niagara was a franchise which began life from a business
run by Salvatore Oliveti. Oliveti's connections were not exactly
ones that fear too much especially in their line of business. OMG
Niagara still operates under a name that suffered heavy financial
losses due to bad publicity and an apparent connection to Vito
Rizzuto. Most business logic would necessitate disassociation with
such a business.

OMG Niagara has had other problems
to deal with. It appears that a hot dog cart is or was operated by
OMG Niagara. This hot dog cart ran head-on into a collision with
regional health inspectors. This is the same OMG Niagara on the
breached advertising contracts as on the Health Inspection Report
issued by Region of Niagara health inspectors, with the same address,
41-286 Cushman Road, St. Catharines. According to Niagara Region
records a verbal closure order was issued on May 22nd
2014, then a ticket issued July 29th 2014, another closure
order issued on May 22nd 2014, and a conviction July 29th
2014. All of this in breach of health code regulations for safe
handling of food. It appears that OMG Niagara not only is willing to
breach Ontario contract law but has little regard for health
regulations in relation to its hot dogs.

Still, failing numerous regional
health inspections does not explain what its president Gary Dingwall
had to fear. The stench of fear is clear and evident in Dingwall's
voice on the message and most definitely in his words. Yet the
question remains, what did Gary Dingwall fear? St. Catharines'
exiting Mayor Brian McMullan had threatened a potential mayoral
candidate illegally in the lead up to the Municipal Elections of
2014, simply for a tweet that linked to Mayorgate. Did OMG and Gary
Dingwall fear worse actions, so he decided to censor Mayorgate?

The law is simple, contracts were signed and monies paid with full compliance to the accepted rules of the Advertising Council. Breach of contract and the cowardly refusal to supply a written termination only further add to the illegality of the situation. For that reason legal action has been prepared against OMG Niagara and Gary Dingwall, damages will be claimed and an explanation demanded. It will be interesting to put Gary Dingwall under oath in court of law with this question; who threatened you and how?

Friday, October 24, 2014

For
politicians on any level truth becomes only a matter of convenience
often measured on a scale of self-importance. As we head into
another round of Municipal elections this fact needs to be broadcast
loud and clear. In the real world of cities such as Toronto,
Hamilton and others media exists to provide information on all the
candidates. True, political bias and alliances are always evident in
media yet somehow all the information finds its way to the people in
the end. In St. Catharines, Ontario such a fantasy does not exist
and the so called media is at the helm of pseudo Spielbergs creating
illusion for sale to the local masses.

Politics
itself has always had an air of smoke and mirrors about it, at least
on a national level. After all a Prime Minister has to deal with
such mundane issues as national security, possible wars, terrorism
and more. Locally though it is hard to sell the need to have an
ability or finesse at a good poker face. Who would you need to
bluff? Homeowners who simply want decent roads so as not to lose
their teeth on the way to work? Residents who want water rates at an
affordable level and garbage collected?

Still
politics is politics and its allure of power changes even the
grassroots levels within its own sphere. Power in a big city is
equally big power, power in a small town is still big power and its
exhilarating effect impossible to ignore. Municipal politics remains
the most closely associated level in the political landscape with the
very people who elect their representatives. After all each resident
has an opportunity to cast a vote for a neighbour as their
representative on council.

As
the neighbours hit the streets with signs big and small, with
promises equally big and small, one most important point to remember
in the final decision process is that once they're in, they're in.
Lies, broken promises, even corruption doesn't matter,you
can't pry them out. Toronto has proven that insanity is the norm in
Canadian politics with the Ford farce.

St.
Catharines faces decision day on October the 27th
with five candidates for mayor elbowing and pushing for position.
Debates in Canada are moderated to remove all openness of debating.
Questions are sanitised and sterilised, and real truth non-existing.
Media in St. Catharines with its entrenched censorship ensures that
no facts are made public, no relevant or pertinent questions are
asked, and only harps on the negativity raised by candidates. It
seems in Canada candidates are only expected to say 'nice' things
about each other.

Looking
at the five mayoral candidates one soon realises that if this
Canadian civility is lifted to face reality and media censorship
smashed then the decision process is not an easy one. Borrowing
horse racing jargon, candidates Jim Fannon and Mark Stevens are
considered the less favourite with odds running against them for a
serious vote.

Candidate
Jim Fannon does not have a web page and no clear statement as to a
platform or 'wish list' for St. Catharines. He appears to run his
campaign through his Facebook and some of his statements make little
sense, in particular the notion of term limits. Term limits can only
be discussed at a provincial level and any decision making out of the
hands of municipal politicians. Originally Fannon was part of the
ra-ra team for the front runner candidate Jeff Burch and then decided
to run against him. When something like this happens questions arise
as to the real purpose of such a candidate.

Another
candidate, Mark Stevens, also faces extreme odds to find serious
voter numbers. Unlike Fannon, Mark Stevens has signs up all around
the city trying to compete on the well travelled intersections
littered with 'pick me' screams. Mark Stevens does have a web page,
he tries to say that he is only an ordinary guy who has lived in St.
Catharines for a long time and wants to make a difference. Listening
to Mark Stevens comment on jobs and the future of St. Catharines
proves that he is just a regular guy.

After
leaving behind the two outsiders what's left are the three prima
donnas elbowing for position and banging the drum of experience. Yet
a resume claiming experience also demands questions of consequence.
No such questions have been raised till now. If they are then the
spectre of negative campaigning is immediately pronounced. We in
Canada have to play nice and ignore the truth as it may be
uncomfortable.

Jeff
Burch, Peter Secord and Walter Sendzik each claim they have the
answers to the issues St. Catharines faces. Burch and Secord both
have sat on city council taking part in the decisions and responsible
for inaction that has provided for a very uncomfortable future for
this city and its people. Walter Sendzik has led the Greater Niagara
Chamber of Commerce and watched the decimation of the city core with
no real answers as to any potential solutions. Now these three have
found the light and are willing to sell their sideshow.

Walter
Sendzik claims to want “transparency
and accountability at city hall.” Each
time there is an election, wannabe politicians pick up the same tired
and useless words. Somehow desire for transparency and
accountability only surfaces before they get elected; once in office
the doors are shut. Being the leader of a Chamber of Commerce, it is
no surprise that Sendzik also employs another tired and common slogan
in his desire to “identify
and remove barriers to business.”
Yet he stayed silent when business owner Sam Demita, owner and
operator of Sun Collision not only removed so called barriers but
simply broke all the by-laws without consequence.

Once
again each of the candidates is on the GO Train election ride and
promises to rebuild Port Dalhousie. Reality rarely joins in the
lists of promises and empty words. In his “vision
for St. Catharines,” Walter
wishes to “focus
on returning St. Catharines as a leader in Ontario.” To
“focus on returning” would insinuatethat
St. Catharines once lead the province in some area, he does not make
that clear though.

St. Catharines downtown core is
barely limping. All the promises of good times to come with the
massive building of two facilities are yet to eventuate. Bringing in
residential space opens the doors to questions of services for the
basic needs such as some sort of supermarket. The core has plenty of
bars, a fancy, new and elaborate tattoo parlour and a hamburger joint
that sends the Big Mac packing. But no one can lay claim to the
illusion that 'the core' is residence friendly. Oh and that has not
been a secret over the last four years.

Poverty and struggle for survival
in St. Catharines is a daily routine. Our job market is
non-existent. Those who are fortunate to have jobs find themselves
in the minimum wage or barely above bracket, unable to provide the
bare basics for their families. Young people who were born here have
no reason to stay and if it continues, that in itself will forecast a
loss of identity and credibility.

Walter
makes empty promises and then when pressured on issues as head of the
chamber he blames the board for its decisions. One could take
Sendzik's “vision” and pull it to pieces for saying nothing built
in reality but that would be considered as pessimistic by Canadian
standards. Yet Sendzik himself admits to horrific figures for
unemployment, for youth unemployment and how low St. Catharines was
rated by the Conference Board of Canada Report of 2014. The report
titled City Magnets III: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of
50 Canadian Cities, analyses and
benchmarks the features that make Canadian cities attractive to
newcomer populations. Cities are compared on indicators grouped
into seven categories: Society, Health, Economy, Environment,
Education, Innovation, and Housing. Data for this analysis is based
on the 2011 Census and National Household Survey. No one can ignore these
realities.

In
an interview with The Standard (Walter Sendzik says city's
future is in jobs. Karena Walter, October 9, 2014) Sendzik
said; “the next 10 years has to be about attracting
private sector investments in the community. That's where my
background provides a lot of expertise in getting the private sector
spending in the community, investing in the community.” So
the man who led the Chamber of Commerce, a man who now lays claim to
a background and expertise in getting things done within the private
sector saw no reason to do any of this until he declared his
political intentions. Where did Walter Sendzik hide his expertise
whilst head of the Chamber of Commerce? Why is it only now in an
election campaign that Sendzik brags about his expertise, maybe his
salary as the head of the chamber wasn't enough motivation to attract
private sector spending.

Sprinting
from the Sendzik vision one crashes into Peter Secord and his ideal
of 'Back to Basics'. Peter Secord claims that he is ready to be
mayor after years of serving on city council. As a councillor Secord
has been present for all that has happened in St. Catharines. He
claims, “After significant citizen-led investment in our
community, St. Catharines must ensure its finances are in
order and in line with our community's new priorities.” Our
community's new priorities? Unemployment, poverty, our young
leaving, taxes, lubricious spending by Church Street, simple honesty
and integrity in office, are these to be considered “new
priorities”?

According
to Peter Secord's great stride into the future he wants to “get
back to the basics of representing the taxpayer. Our community needs
someone who not only understands the issues but has lived through
them as well.” What is
Secord's version of back to basics?
Peter Secord sat on city council as fellow councillor Jeff Burch
lied to council. Secord knew that Councillor Jeff Burch lied, he
also was provided with the Integrity Commissioner's report where
Suzanne Craig clearly stated that she had not cleared Burch of the
very serious allegations. Maybe honesty, integrity or accountability
do not rate high in Peter Secord's back to basics.

What
does rate as back to basics
to Peter Secord? As he was aware of Councillor Jeff Burch's lies, as
a fellow member of council he was also aware of a small business
owner Sam Demita, owner and operator of Sun Collision, who had broken
local laws for some 5 years. Secord is also aware that after the
city 'fixed' the law for Sam Demita, and after an OMB hearing cleared
the path, the same Sam Demita has broken the new laws that the city
had fixed for him.

Peter
Secord has a 1, 2, 3 step plan for his back to basics:
First is, “A plan for financial accountability,” then
the Second is, “Local solutions for local jobs,” and
finally the Third, “Commitment to the taxpayer.”
Reading these steps or points
little is found that is constructive or realistic. In his first
installment Secord speaks of a tax freeze, he actually promises one.
If he was to win the job as mayor, Peter Secord will be only one vote
and he has heard loudly from council that the majority are against
such folly.

In
his second installment Secord is surprised that “the same
team who is responsible for business support also oversee the Santa
Claus Parade and Canada Day events.” Where
has Secord been for his years of service on council? This is news to
him? Maybe it was Santa Claus who 'fixed' things for Demita?

In
the 2010 election Brian McMullan said no tax dollars should be spent
on the hockey palace. Peter Secord sat on council and approved the
exact opposite. Now it is the same Secord who promises a tax freeze.
A little too little and a little too late. Yet at a council meeting
when his plans for a tax freeze were openly objected, Peter Secord
said that nothing was set in stone. Secord finished off with this in
relation to his motion on freezing taxes, “The motion is
just that staff works in that direction, towards zero, it's setting
the bar, so that they go in that direction.” (Doug Herod,
www.stcatharines.ca, October 1 2014, 'HEROD: Hamming it up on council
stage').

Has the proverbial bar been set or
will the final candidate in the 2014 Municipal elections find a new
level for himself? Jeff Burch, like Peter Secord, has sat on city
council for years, and like Peter Secord has only now found the
answers. Unlike Secord, Jeff Burch points to 5 Priorities for
Prosperity and welcomes people to the “new St. Catharines”
on his billboards whilst the old St. Catharines has not been
buried in the aftermath of the election stampede.

Burch's five priorities for
prosperity in fact do not really sound any different from Secord
or Sendzik. Jobs, or the frightening lack of, are on the minds of
all residents in St. Catharines. Tax dollars have never left the
minds of St. Catharines residents as each year it is becoming harder
and harder to budget for the inevitable increases. Whether it is
Burch and his five or Secord with desires of going back to basics, or
Sendzik's vision, Port Dalhousie is a hot topic. The Go Train is on
everyone's wish list even if there are no real riders for it and our
downtown still waiting for solutions.

Reading Jeff Burch's press releases
or his website, nothing new is found. On October 1st a
press release on Port Dalhousie finds Jeff Burch quoted as saying “I
have the experience to lead revitalization efforts that respect and
include residents.” From here the bar is lowered dramatically
and the similarities between Burch and the other two main candidates
cease.

Integrity Commissioner Suzanne
Craig came to investigate Councillor Jeff Burch and his lies to City
Council and the people of St. Catharines. Integrity Commissioner
Craig was shocked that no one from The Standard or the free
Niagara this Week made any reference to the investigation.
Councillor Jeff Burch lied to protect Sam Demita, owner and operator
of Sun Collision. In the end Integrity Commissioner Craig submitted
her report and stated that she had not cleared Councillor Jeff Burch
of the very serious allegations. All of this was censored.

This was not all that Councillor
Burch has never answered for. As residents in Merritton found
flooding damage in their homes, Councillor Burch issued a warning to
one of the residents that was chilling. To keep things quiet
Councillor Burch in the 2010 election campaign used Niagara Regional Police to harass and intimidate me so as to stop any questions being
raised. Everything here has been documented and it's only the
censorship by The Standard in particular that has kept this
from the people of St. Catharines. Now ex-reporter from The
Standard Marlene Bergsma has publicly endorsed Burch.

Residents all over will struggle to
make a decision as to who they should vote for. In St. Catharines
there are extremely serious issues and the political game surrounding
all the candidates continues. The Conference Board of Canada
released its report in Ottawa September 18th 2014, and
rated St. Catharines in the 'D' Cities – Struggling to Attract.
One of the main criteria for consideration according to Alan Arcand
of the Centre for Municipal Studies is, “cities that fail to
attract new people will struggle to stay prosperous and vibrant.”
St. Catharines found itself in the “D” class where 9 of the
13 cities had showed little population growth between 2006 and 2011,
and two cities saw their population decline. (News Release 15-27
Six Canadians Cities out of 50 Receive Top Marks for Attracting
Newcomers).

According to Statistics Canada, St.
Catharines' population in 2006 was 131,989 and in 2011 it dropped to
131,400. Both Jeff Burch and Peter Secord have sat on city council
since 2006. “Now is not the time for campaign stunts”, these
areJeff Burch's own words. Now is the time to
make a very hard decision and live with it for the next four years.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Plagiarism has been an issue that has been debated for ages. There are some who argue that Shakespeare had not really written some of his rather famous plays but rather had only put his name to them. Can it be thought that taking someone else's work for your own is some form of flattery? The Webster's Dictionary provides an archaic description for plagiarism as to have meant kidnapping. Today oxforddictionaries.com describes plagiarism as, “the practise of taking someone else's workor ideas and passing them off as one's own.”

Whether it is the oxforddictionaries.com or the freedictionary.com plagiarism is simply theft, no one can disagree. Yet unlike the thief who can be compelled to return what he or she stole, the plagiarist cannot. Instead the violation has a permanency about it that stains the work of the victim even after the theft is discovered.

In our democratic society there are laws in place to protect intellectual content and provide clear rights of ownership. As with any action taken to protect one's ownership, proof of ownership and a trail marked with evidence leading from original conception to eventual discovery of theft is crucial.

Still any thief squirms when caught till the net of evidence tightens. One such individual, Kai Nagata, tried a novel approach claiming “intellectual overlap.” Another individual simply used photos and test results from environmental testing without providing credit as to who those documents belonged to. Many who simply take a photo or other material and use it without providing credit to the original owner do so without intent to steal. They do so without thought or the dignity of acknowledgement but not with malicious intent. Others are simply thieves.

Publishing Mayorgate has meant that extremely high standards were put in place from the first article. No article is based on rumour or innuendo. Research and facts have always been the key to all commentary and each article provides the material for a reader to examine and decide upon for themselves. At the same time publishing Mayorgate has meant to be willing to protect its integrity and original work at all costs.

A week ago it came to my attention that an individual had shot a video and posted it on YouTube making claims that he had broken a story on a rather serious issue. The information came by way of an email sent by Fred Bracken to Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski on September 30th 2014, copied to me and others. After watching the video I decided to find as much public information as possible about Fred Bracken. Even though Fred Bracken is being sued by Debbie Zimmerman for placing a comment on my article published on Mayorgate, I had never met him or spoken with him.

First I watched a few of his other videos as posted on YouTube. My opinion was simply that Bracken comes across as Ezra Levant with a small camera. I searched further. Preston Haskell in a piece titled Lords of Niagara on his News Alert Niagara (September 15th 2014) calls Bracken, “...a well publicized and licensed video reporter.” A Google search on what a “licensed video reporter” means came up empty. Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski tweeted on September 25th 2014, “We need more Fred Bracken truth warriors.” On January 11th 2014 Preston Haskell on his News Alert Niagaradid an expose titled Who is Fred Bracken, Bracken added this comment to the article himself. “I look forward to doing more videos. Ifanyone has topics they would like me to ask the politicians on camera, feel free to send me an email on...”.

Still the mystery remained a mystery as to who this Fred Bracken really is. Other than the twitterspherehumming with regular cooing between Councillor Petrowski and Bracken, or Preston Haskell referring to him as a “well publicized and licensed video reporter,” nothing was found, not even a Google clarification on that description used by Haskell. Till two references were finally unearthed from a blog called The Fort Erie Ninja dating back to March 2014. One of the short pieces is titled simply Mr.Bracken from March 25th and the other So Mr.Bracken. What Was In It For Brady?from March 27th.

The author at Fort Erie Ninja, Sensei Ron said on the 25th of March, “It would take far to long to edit all of your comments to post them for accuracy. Let us know what CHCH said as well.”Then on March 26th the author posted a comment under a heading One thought on Mr. Bracken. Sensei Ron began with “Mr. Bracken, if you want to be taken serious then you need to understand a few things. Not everyone is against you.” Sensei Ron continued, “You are pointing fingers at people who had nothing to do with it. If you want us to help you expose something we will, but it has to be done right. Start with Lubberts. Don't look at something then make assumptions and fill in the blanks. You told us in your comments that this is international news. You told us you were notifying CHCH. So what did CHCH say? If they don't run with it, does that mean they are in on this too?”

Nothing more was found on this “well publicized and licensed video reporter,” as Preston Haskell had labelled him. Conspiracists exist in every community as do plagiarists. One simply develops his own theory on assumption and presumption rather than fact, then passes it off as his own fact. The other takes work that does not belong to him and then passes it off as his own to elevate himself.

In his September 30th 2014 email, Bracken claims that Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman had gone to the Hamilton Regional Police in relation to his video. He brags that he is going to interview the Hamilton police and videotape the interview, uploading that to YouTube. No upload has been found to date.

Viewing the short video three major points come forward. Fred Bracken makes a claim that he broke the story of the affair between Mayor Brian McMullan of St. Catharines and Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman, who represents the town of Grimsby. Both Mayor Brian McMullan and Debbie Zimmerman are members of Regional Council in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Bracken also claims that Debbie Zimmerman is suing him because he broke the news. Both claims are not true.

Fred Bracken's own words are: “Uh, the question, I just asked her a simple question on, uh, basically, um, why she would sue a civil journalist, um because I broke the news at, uh, Ruth McMullan allegations, that she's having an affair with Brian McMullan.”

As this splat of rhetoric continues from Fred Bracken he presents another lie publicly, and then posts this video for public consumption. Once again Bracken's own words are: “And, uh no one will report that, the news hasn't reported it and now she sued me civilly.”

There is nothing to say other than Fred Bracken lied on three serious points and publicly posted his lies. Since I was aware of the association that Bracken has with both Preston Haskell and Andy Petrowski I sent an email which provided a simple solution. That was a mistake, or maybe not so much in hindsight. Petrowski responded with, “He didn't mean it like that Alex... he is harmless, he meant broke it verbally in public... if you want to get it official, Ruth McMullan broke the story!”.

News of the affair between Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman and St. Catharines Mayor and Regional Councillor Brian McMullan first found public light on Mayorgate, May 19th 2014. Prior to this full and in depth report only rumours had played the airwaves of Niagara for over four years. An issue such as this is news and the thought that local media had ignored it is simply implausible. Mayorgate's article carried clear documentation in support of comments made and raised serious questions. As a result I as publisher have faced threat, intimidation and a law suit first by Debbie Zimmerman and much later by Brian McMullan. It is understandable why both need to silence the truth and the serious implications of the affair.

Breaking a story means that a media outlet distributes the story of an event. When Watergate broke to shock the American people, those reporters provided facts and information. Yet they had to start somewhere, it was not a crystal ball but an informant, or a snitch if you prefer, that led the way. That informant or snitch did not break the story because he or she provided a thread. Time, research, and work is required to provide a story and the thought that anyone simply steals all of that to claim for his own is unacceptable.

Bracken took for his own, work thathe had no right to. That was not all he lied about. He claimed that Debbie Zimmerman was suing him for breaking the news. Zimmerman's official Statement of Claim has been published in an article titled, Mayorgate responds to Debbie Zimmerman's Ego.Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman is suing me as the author and publisher of Mayorgate for bringing to public attention the affair and raising serious questions regarding her association with Mayor Brian McMullan. She is also suing Fred Bracken as per pages 6 and 7 of her Statement of Claim.

Zimmerman is suing Bracken for three tweets and one comment which he placed on the article published on Mayorgate. He is also accused of republishing the article originally published on Mayorgate by linking to the article in his May 19th 2014 tweet. Bracken likes to call himself a citizen journalist, or in his own words “civil journalist.” The concept of citizen journalism is based upon public citizens “playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information.” (Wikipedia).

Twitter in our modern world is considered a buzz feed providing short bursts of comment usually after an event. Bracken's third lie is that no one had reported the story of the affair between McMullan and Zimmerman as alleged by Ruth McMullan in her divorce papers. Bracken simply lied and Andy Petrowski defended him again by saying, “honestly he is a simple guy and meant NO ill will.” Bracken's original email of September 30th 2014 claims that “Debbie Zimmerman has called the Hamilton Regional Police over the video I made where she goes ballistic...”.

Webster's Dictionary describes ballistic, other than the science of motion or projectiles, as having an informal usage meaning, to become so angry as to lose emotional control. Viewing Bracken's video all one sees of Debbie Zimmerman is that she stands up, then moves with her back to the wall as others get involved. “Goes ballistic” is a lie and his video proves that.

Approaching Andy Petrowski and Preston Haskell I thought that mutual respect and understanding existed, and both of them are strongly associated with Fred Bracken who I do not know. Though when any individual diminishes another's work in the fashion Petrowski had mine, the picture became clear and I had left it alone. That was till one email came from Petrowski on October 1st 2014, at 12:59 pm. Here Councillor Petrowski states “Bracken tweeted the affair 12 days before the mayorgate story.” Some forty minutes later Bracken tweets Petrowski at 1:39 pm, October 1st 2014. This “harmless and simple man” according to Petrowski says “I broke the news May 7th...”

All of Bracken's tweets are here and regardless of how Councillor Petrowski defends Bracken, whether he is harmless or simple, he lied. Petrowski knew that and I responded the following day.

Any individual who presents content on the net is aware of the potential of theft. Many find it difficult to take action of the theft of time, effort, research, and the act of creating something of value. Here in this case it is simple. Fred Bracken stole work that was not his own and passed it off as his. Legally speaking one attempt had been made to resolve the matter, it failed. A second attempt shall be made and if ignored legal action will commence.

The news of Mayor Brian McMullan and his divorce may be unpleasant for some though not a shock to many. One individual who commented ona published article on Mayorgate stated that the rumours of the affair had floated around Niagara for years. Had this individual then broken the story? A tweet harassing a reporter with a question does not break a story. Shoving a camera in anyone's face does not constitute reporting news. A citizen journalist is still required even by the Supreme Court of Canada to follow guidelines and expected provable criteria.

Today the world is opening up and changing. Traditional media has no choice but to acknowledge that fact. People have become tired of the bias that is so prevalent in journalism and the internet has provided an alternative. At the same time the internet allows theft to run rampant and that can only subside with decisive action.

Fred Bracken will be given an opportunity to remedy the situation. After that the choice is his own. Councillor Andy Petrowski sadly has shown that all politicians see truth as a convenient toy and on a scale of 1 to 10 that doesn't rate even a zero.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

St.
Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan continues to toy with his penchant
for intimidation and harassment, although this time there is a new
twist. As reported previously Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster,
Brooks & Welch LLP served, on behalf of his client, a Notice of
Action on July 9th 2014. Four articles were singled out
from Mayorgate which were
claimed to have hurt his client's feelings.

Christopher
Bittle's chant begins with “Your articles wrongly state
an allegation of an affair as truth and use that as a basis to malign
Mr. McMullan's character. These allegations are untrue.” The
background music should now be building to a crescendo of thunderous
proportion, “You have alleged the following conduct on
the part of Mr. McMullan that is false: a) He has been involved in a
affair with Debbie Zimmerman.” A
crash comes sounding from the bass drum, “The above noted
allegations are false and are presented as fact without any evidence
of support.”

This is page 4 from the original Notice of Action served July 9th, 2014.

A
Plaintiff's Claim was served on me as publisher of Mayorgate
on August 26th 2014. This claim should have been a mighty
climax, instead it turns out to be a tiny piccolo squeaking in the
background. All protest and denial of the affair with Debbie
Zimmerman had been dropped. Describing the so called defamation from
point 12 through to point 21, Brian McMullan no longer denies the
affair nor brings it up in his rhetoric, which in itself brings forth
a serious issue to be dealt with momentarily. In fact not one single
word is made to deny the affair. At this point regardless of how
biased one may be to the truth or fact a simple observation comes
screaming forth. Since Mayor Brian McMullan has stopped denying the
affair with Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman, in legal documents
at that, then he has finally
succumbed to the weight of truth and admitted that fact. What other
reasonable interpretation is possible by any reasonable individual?

Page 7 from the Statement of Claim served August 26th, 2014

Page 8 of the Statement of Claim served August 26th, 2014

In
publishing and writing the articles on Mayorgate
that span such a variety
of relevant topics to our society one thread remains constant. As a
writer, and author of any piece remaining on topic from the beginning
to end is crucial in order to hold on to credibility. True evidence
or documentation may need to be introduced, but the thread can never
be lost. Those who write fiction or fantasy may have the luxury to
meander into divergent fields but not an author of fact. Christopher
Bittle as a lawyer on behalf of a client is in a way a writer, an
author relying on the foundation of law for a clear and concise
treatment of truth. That being said the main thread of his client's
allegation from the Notice of Action, which begins any action under
the Rules of Civil Procedure, has been dropped. The consequences are
very serious.

Dropping
all denial of the affair from his Statement of Claim, Brian McMullan
has apparently admitted to the affair. That in itself is somewhat
bewildering though there is a great deal more to examine.
Christopher Bittle as a lawyer joined Lancaster, Brooks & Welch
in 2010. He claims to specialise in Civil Law and Defamation Law.
It would be expected that he would be quite familiar with the Rules
of Civil Procedure. On behalf of his client Brian McMullan he served
the Notice of Action on July 9th
2014,and now served
the Statement of Claim on August 26th
2014. The Law Society of Upper Canada provides help and guidance on
their website for the public and separately for lawyers. For lawyers
the headings range from 'About Your License', 'Professional Rules'
and 'Become a Lawyer'. Separately there is a heading titled 'How to
Commence a Civil Action'. It would seem that years of university and
passing the Bar Exam is not sufficient, a how-to guide is still
required.

Under
the heading 'How to Commence a Civil Action' there is a “How-to
Brief,” truly there is, I do not jest. Quoting the Law Society of
Upper Canada official website it states, “This
How-to Brief outlines the steps to take when commencing an action.”
There are eight steps
outlined and step 3 is titled “Analyze the Case.” Bullet 5 here
states quite clearly, “Where time is of the essence,
prepare and issue a notice of action (form 14C). Note that if a
notice of action is used, the statement of claim in Form 14D must be
filed within 30 days of the notice of action being issued.”

In case Christopher Bittle missed
this how-to guide there is a website provided by Law Help Ontario.
This guide is called “Starting a Proceeding in Superior
Court.” In simplified form a chart is provided, on the left
“Start the Claim using,”in the centre the heading
“Action.” Now I quote again, “If you start your
claim with a Notice of Action, you must file a Statement of Claim
(Form 14D not Form 14A) with the court office within 30 days after
the Notice of Action is issued.” Mind you before one is
able to file with the court office any notice of action, statement of
claim or statement of defence, that notice or statement must first be
served on the defendant or plaintiff and proof of service provided to
the court.

Small Claims Court is the lowest
rung on the ladder for the justice system of courts. It is used to
adjudicate minor disputes so as not to clog up the court system and
so as to get faster results. Brian McMullan had decided to not
follow his lady friend and only lower his claim to the Small Claims
Court. Yet all the rules under the Libel and Slander Act apply and
rules of service. At point 16 of the Statement of Claim he attempts
to provide an explanation as to why he missed the time limitation
period under the Libel and Slander Act for one article in particular.
Equally he has to comply with time limitations relating to the
service of his statement of claim.

These rules which the courts and
various legislation expect all to abide by are set to bring a unified
and fair system of justice. They are also designed to permit a
timely resolution to grievances. One such rule is simply a
requirement that as an action begins with a notice of action it then
continues unchanged, renovations and add-ons are not accepted.
Christopher Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch threw this gem
into the Statement of Claim point 13 (h), “Such further and
other items as counsel may advise.” He continued again with
point 14, “Despite the lack of evidence to support the
defendant's allegations, Davidoff refused to print a retraction.”

Evidence, what is evidence?
Webster explains the word to mean “2. something that makes
another thing evident, indication; sign, 3. something that tends to
prove; ground for belief, 4. Law, something presented in a legal
proceeding, as a statement of a witness, an object etc; which bears
on or establishes a point in question.” Rather simple and
clear to understand one would think, it is for that reason that my
Statement of Defence which was served on Christopher Bittle at
Lancaster, Brooks & Welch and his client Brian McMullan on
September 15th 2014, was 629 pages deep of evidence.

It appears that Lancaster, Brooks &
Welch LLP's budget on copying ink must be extremely limited, as many
of the pages copied by Christopher Bittle in his Statement of Claim
relating to my articles are so very faint, and barely readable. I
have provided them loud and clear to ensure no error is made. Soon
more evidence will be provided at the mandatory Settlement
Conference, and it will be interesting to hear how the Lancaster,
Brooks & Welch orchestra supports the piccolo solo act.

Christopher Bittle and his client
Brian McMullan have slandered both me and my website,
mayorgate.blogspot.com, twice. First in his Notice of Action, Bittle
states, “The above noted allegations are false and are presented
as fact without any evidence of support.” Then
the Bittle and McMullan tag team claimed, “Despite the lack of
evidence to support the defendant's allegations, Davidoff refuses to
print a retraction.” Now comes the opportunity to put Brian
McMullan under oath and prepare the list of questions (oh, most are
prepared already) that will come from the 629 pages of evidence. It
is time for Mayor Brian McMullan to answer under the threat of
perjury and finally provide the truth. Brian McMullan ran from
taking the oath in his attempted intimidation of Regional Councillor
Andy Petrowski, he cannot escape this now.

Reading each of the quotes chosen
by Christopher Bittle for his client Brian McMullan one point stands
out over and over again. Each of the quotes are intentionally taken
out of context, no sentence simply stands alone. An example is the
very first one labelled as #5 from
Mayorgate's article 'Brian McMullan's Fear of Mayorgate'.
“How far will the machinations of Mayor Brian McMullan reach
past common dignity and continue to be motivated by the fear of
truth?”.

This particular quote in fact is
the opening to the article and appropriate to use here and now. It
reads in full: “How far will the machinations of Mayor Brian
McMullan reach past common dignity and continue to be motivated by
the fear of truth? The answer to such a question is not easy to
settle on, as time and time again Brian McMullan has proven that
something new is always on the horizon.”

Christopher Bittle did leave out
this quote from paragraph 4 of the article, “Still Brian
McMullan's fear of Mayorgate grows and if that is not to be
considered truth then another explanation of these actions by
McMullan is welcomed, by Brian McMullan himself!”.

Brian McMullan chose threat and
intimidation so as to silence a voice that reaches for the truth and
raises very uncomfortable questions. Each article that appears on
Mayorgate searches for the truth, raisingquestions and
comment from its readers. The Supreme Court of Canada made it clear
in its decision after hearing the Grant v. Torstar appeal that the
threat of litigation against journalists silences the free exchange
of debate.

McMullan claims that he had been
hurt by facts being discussed openly, yet he is an elected public
official paid by public funds. He claims that his credit had been
affected by articles on Mayorgate, yet he intentionally lost
his home and had his utilities cut off on an income of $160,000 plus.
As one listens to the words of City of St. Catharines' Merritton
WardCouncillor Jennie Stevens, in her own voice, stating that
the Mayor had fixed a fine, can it be possible to make a fair comment
that it was wrong? Will the voice of Councillor Jennie Stevens on
the answering machine raise comment? Regardless of whether an
individual is aware of the Municipal Act or of law itself, will there
be comment?

Reading the divorce papers filed by
the wife of Mayor Brian McMullan where she raises adultery in legal
court documents and names Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman as the
partner in adultery, is it fair to raise questions of conflict of
interest? After all both Brian McMullan and Debbie Zimmerman are
sitting on council together, and the nature of adultery is based on
daily dishonesty. Does a husband tell his wife that he is off to a
hotel with another woman rather than really having a business trip
and expect that his wife will be calm about the whole thing? No, the
husband lies! Can those lies then find themselves creeping into all
other areas of his life? Do the people who he and in this case she,
represent have the right to question the situation?

Truth, facts and the right to
question is the foundation of journalism. At the same time those who
prefer to stay under the cover of darkness threaten and intimidate to
ensure that nothing or as little as possible leaks out.

In
a bold and strong decision the Supreme Court of Canada decided that
the protection of free speech was an absolute necessity to protect.
The Supreme Court decisions in the Grant v. Torstar and WIC Radio v.
Simpson cases have set
the benchmark for both protection and defence of journalistic
expression and freedom of speech.

Paragraph
31 from the Grant v. Torstar decision states; “In addition to
the privilege, statements of opinion, a category which includes any
“deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgement, remark or
observation which is generally incapable of proof” (Ross v. New
Brunswick Teachers' Assn., 2001 NBCA 62, 201 D.L.R. (4th)
75, at para. 56, cited in WIC Radio, at para. 26), may attract the
defence of fair comment. As reformulated in WIC Radio, at para. 28,
a defendant claiming fair comment must satisfy the following test:
a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; b) the comment
must be based on fact; c) the comment, though it can include
inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment; d) the comment
must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly
express that opinion on the proved facts?; and e) even though the
comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if
the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express
malice. WIC Radio expanded the fair comment defence by changing the
traditional requirement that the opinion be one that a “fair-minded”
person could honestly hold, to a requirement that it be one that
“anyone could honestly have expressed” (para. 49-51), which
allows for robust debate. As Binnie J. put it, “[w]e live in a
free country where people have as much right to express outrageous
and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones” (para. 4).”

In this action brought about by
Mayor Brian McMullan and his lawyer Christopher Bittle the issues
extend far beyond the points of fair comment, public interest or of
fact. A greater and more alarming facet of our society has to be
defended. To this point Brian McMullan has been served with some 629
pages as a statement of defence, it is only the outline which the
defence is to be based on. A further set of documents will be served
on Brian McMullan prior to the court imposed settlement conference.
The actual defence will begin with the dozens of questions Mayor
Brian McMullan will answer under oath on the stand.

Our democratic society thrives
under the belief that we as Canadians have certain rights which are
protected under law and legislation. Although the laws and
legislation do exist their protection is far from automatic. The
issues here go far beyond a journalist being threatened or the
public's interest. Rather the battle line is drawn on a greater
field, one that we as Canadians cannot believe, or simply will not
believe is possible in Canada.

Censorship is generally a tool used
to weaken and control a society, in a way forcing it into submission
of its will. Self-imposed censorship is an abomination of corruption
of society, and no Canadian will believe that it is possible anywhere
in Canada. In this case THEY ARE WRONG!

Quoting again from Grant v.
Torstar, paragraph 36, “In the last decade, this recognition
has sometimes been extended to media defendants. For example, in
Grenier v. Southam Inc., [1997] O.J. No. 2193 (QL), the Ontario Court
of Appeal (in a brief endorsement) upheld a trial judge's finding
that the defendant media corporation had a “social and moral duty”
to publish the article in question. Other cases have adopted the
view that qualified privilege is available to media defendants,
provided that they can show a social or moral duty to publish the
information and a corresponding public interest in receiving it:
Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 656
(S.C.J), at p. 695 aff'd (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 612 (C.A.), and Young
v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. (2003), 66 O.R (3d) 170 (S.C.J.),
aff'd (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 680 (C.A).”

Media has an obligation to provide
the information to the public. Self-imposed censorship by the media
is corruption of our society and it cannot be permitted under any
circumstances. We are no longer so naive as to expect a completely
unbiased media, as businesses form alliances and in turn pay dues on
favours received. Politics is a business which has the power to
demand such alliances and therefore extends massive influence on the
media. Yet extending influence is completely different in nature to
complete censorship.

In St. Catharines, Ontario every
word of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been sold and forced
to conform to corruption of free speech and thought. As alluded to
earlier this is the centre of the action before the courts here.
Brian McMullan will take the stand under oath and answer all the
questions as demanded. In addition to McMullan absolute proof will
be provided before the court of a system of censorship put in place
which must be torn down. It is an opportunity that will not be
allowed to pass.

Our public officials are elected by
the public and are accountable to the public on every issue which in
any way may or may not affect the public. Secrecy is unacceptable
and full accountability demanded. Free flowing comment, the open
exchange of information and discussion of facts are cornerstones of
our democratic society. The Supreme Court of Canada in its decision
of WIC Radio Ltd v. Simpson in paragraph 75 states: “People
who voluntarily take part in debates of matters of public interest
must expect reaction from the public. Indeed, public response will
often be one of the goals of self-expression. In the context of such
debates (and the risk of mixing metaphors), public figures are
expected to have a thick skin and not to be too quick to cry foul
when the discussion becomes heated. This is not to say that harm to
one's reputation is the necessary price of being a public figure.
Rather, it means that what may harm a private individual's reputation
may not damage that of a figure about whom is known and who may have
had ample opportunity to express his or her own contrary views.”

Public life brings with it public
attention and accountability. In this case the issues extend beyond
a public official hiding behind a lawyer and intimidation. Here the
media has become a willing partner in the most unacceptable alliance
imaginable by providing a self-imposed blanket of censorship. It is
time to walk the halls of our Canadian Justice System and open all
the doors to expose this corruption of our society.

There is a need to protect
reputation against wild and intrusive media, against baseless
accusations or innuendo. At the same time the over zealous demand to
protect reputation only becomes a cover for those who have something
to hide and the threat of litigation only becomes harassment and
intimidation.

I leave the close to our Supreme
Court of Canada once again and the Grant v. Torstar Corporation
decision paragraph 62, and wait for the opportunity to stand before
the court to defend against this harassment, intimidation and threat
by Mayor Brian McMullan.

“The
protection offered by a new defence based on conduct is meaningful
for both the publisher and those who reputations are at stake. If
the publisher fails to take appropriate steps having regard to all
the circumstances, it will be liable. The press and others engaged in
pubic communication on matters of public interest, like bloggers,
must act carefully, having regard to the injury to reputation that a
false statement can cause. A defence based on responsible conduct
reflects the social concern that the media should be held accountable
through the law of defamation. As Kirby P. stated in Ballina Shire
Council v. Ringerland (1994), 33 N.S.W.L.R. 680 (C.A), at p. 700:
“The law of defamation is one of the comparatively few checks upon
[the media's] great power.” The requirement that the publisher of
defamatory material act responsibly provides accountability and
comports with the reasonable expectations of those whose conduct
brings with them the sphere of public interest. People in public
life are entitled to expect that the media and other reporters will
act responsibly in protecting them from false accusations and
innuendo. They are not, however, entitled to demand perfection and
the inevitable silencing of critical comment that a standard of
perfection would impose.”

Statement of Claim served by Christopher Bittle for Mayor Brian McMullan